' This is an application on behalf of Saeed Zafar, Ex-Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. F. I. R.
Was lodged on 21-1-1999 on the complainant of Mohsin Bilal, Assistant Director Anti-Corruption Department.
2. Brief facts and allegation narrated in the F.I.R. Are that the petitioner being Deputy Commissioner Bahawalnagar had committed illegalities in recruitment of staff and also had allotted State land on the basis of bogus claim and in clear contravention and direction of the Government by misusing his authority. He allotted 31338 Kanals, 7 Marlas to different persons for his own wrongful gain. He has also provided benefits to his near relatives, his friends and his brothers. He was arrested on 2-2-1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that without investigating/inquiring into the matter Mohsin Bilal, Assistant Director lodged this false case against the present petitioner and others which is in contravention to the rules of Anti-Corruption Department. He further submits that earlier inquiry was conducted by Mian Ashraf Tahir, Assistant Director and in his report, dated 24-6-1997 he had stated that after the inquiry no case is made out against the present petitioner and recommended for the drop age of the said inquiry. According to the learned counsel, Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Department also endorsed the said inquiry.
He further submits that Muhammad Sharif, Advocate who was the complainant in this case also appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted that he did not want to persue the said inquiry. Learned counsel submits that in spite of that Director Anti-Corruption did not agree with the findings of ADA and Deputy Director and handed over the inquiry to one Munawar Hussain. He submits that on the transfer of Munawar Hussain the inquiry was entrusted to Mohsin Bilal, Assistant Director, present in Court. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had not allotted a single Marla to any person. Learned counsel further submits that the persons who were allegedly allotted this land infect had purchased the said land through registered sale-deed and' they have also filed declaratory suits in the civil Court which are still pending, status quo order has been granted in said civil suits. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation about committing irregularity in the recruitment of staff has not been proved on the record during the course of inquiry. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 5 months.
Neither incomplete or complete challan has been submitted in the Court. He submits that the petitioner is a civil servant and is C.S.P. Officer. There is no apprehension of his ascension and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Investigation is still in progress. No useful purpose can be served by detaining him behind the bars.
4. Learned A.A.-G on the other hand submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that he has committed a big fraud, that his case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that he is not entitled to the grant of bail. Learned A.A.-G. Further submits that as far as irregularity in recruiting the employees is concerned, those recruitments have been cancelled by the High Court. That as far as allotments are concerned those have also been cancelled by the Commissioner and as far as civil suits are concerned, they are still pending before the Civil Court.
Learned A.A.-G. Submits that 5 co-accused of the petitioner who had applied for interim bail before arrest namely, Rao Shahid clerk, Jam Ramzan, H.V.C., Rao Shafique, Niaz Ahmad and Javaid Iqbal are still at large and have not been arrested so far according to the learned A.A.-G. Those are the persons who had to appear before the Investigating Officer and to give useful information against the present petitioner. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that for this reason the investigation is not being completed and the same is still in progress.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a C.S.P. Officer and he is behind the bars for the last more than 5 months. Investigation is still incomplete. According to the A.A.-G. The five abovementioned co-accused are still at large. Investigation cannot be proceeded without their arrest. No person can be detained for an indefinite period. No plausible evidence has been shown by the Investigating Officer for allotting the land to bogus persons for his personal wrongful gain. There is no apprehension of the petitioner to abscond or tampering with the prosecution evidence and in my view no useful purpose can be served by detaining the petitioner more behind the bars without any reasonable cause. Moreover, I may also mention here that in earlier inquiries it was recommended by the Assistant Director that the inquiry should be dropped against the petitioner the same was endorsed by the Deputy Director. Muhammad Sharif complainant and also submitted an application before the Investigating Officer that he did not want to persue this inquiry. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner, in my view, is covered by subsection (2) of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.